So, with Romney basically calling for a return to the Cold War, and Putin re-solidifying control as well as blocking the West from intervening in Syria, it looks like Russia will be in the news for some time to come. Russia has also finally joined the World Trade Organization.

What ways could Russia be better integrated with Europe and the United States? How can we encourage friendlier relations?

Well, quit with the Cold War rhetoric from both sides. Putin uses it as a way of masking his inadequacies as a leader, though. I don't think the WTO join will create anything substantive in terms of internal change, though-God knows It hasn't in China. Although Russians have seem to found their collective voices in the last couple years; still, IMO, change needs to come from within.

"We should carry out the same powerful, all-embracing leap forward in modernization of the defense industry as the one carried out in the 1930s," Putin told his Security Council, without mentioning Stalin by name.

I suspect another reason Cold War rhetoric works so well in Russia is there's a certain segment of the population whose fate has worsened in the past twenty years, and they're nostalgic.

I suspect another reason Cold War rhetoric works so well in Russia is there's a certain segment of the population whose fate has worsened in the past twenty years, and they're nostalgic.

That definitely seems to be the case. Quite recently Stalin scored high in a poll about the greatest Russians of all time. Many Russians feel that Stalin, like some stern but compassionate landlord, had to apply tough love to help Russia become a superpower--and this of course explains away all the purges, the murders, the paranoia. More importantly perhaps, they feel that Stalin was "one of the people": straightforward, incorruptible, humble.

Technically the Stalinist era was mostly pre-Cold War (which started 1945-1947). I'm not sure Russians are keen on a Cold War so much as being an economic power. The Russian Federation is still miles behind the USSR in those terms alone.

"We should carry out the same powerful, all-embracing leap forward in modernization of the defense industry as the one carried out in the 1930s," Putin told his Security Council, without mentioning Stalin by name.

I suspect another reason Cold War rhetoric works so well in Russia is there's a certain segment of the population whose fate has worsened in the past twenty years, and they're nostalgic.

ie. the members of the Party that can't pillage the population anymore, or at least, as effectively as communism made it for them?

Technically the Stalinist era was mostly pre-Cold War (which started 1945-1947). I'm not sure Russians are keen on a Cold War so much as being an economic power. The Russian Federation is still miles behind the USSR in those terms alone.

The USSR never was an economic power. If we look at the living conditions of the populace, besides party members (for which there were few), the average person had problems finding a pair of shoes to buy, a piece of meat a month was a splurge, and simply surviving. They built lots of military crap, and the populace starved. Surviving isn't thriving. Capitalism (for how little they have) has made Russia the best it was since the Bolshevik Rev.

What you are talking about is the distribution of wealth across the populace. It's measured in the GINI coefficient. The size of one's economy has nothing to do with how many people reap the benefits thereof. It's a simple measure of how much economic activity there is. By GDP, the Soviet Union had the second largest economy in the world throughout much of the 1970s, and were prominent even before. They certainly were an economic power.

What you are talking about is the distribution of wealth across the populace. It's measured in the GINI coefficient. The size of one's economy has nothing to do with how many people reap the benefits thereof. It's a simple measure of how much economic activity there is. By GDP, the Soviet Union had the second largest economy in the world throughout much of the 1970s, and were prominent even before. They certainly were an economic power.

LoL. Economic power? like I said, I don't care what you produce if it is useless. Build 500k banana statues, and they cost a lot, but they are still banana statues. It's like WWII prosperity...oops, didn't exist, rationed meat, rationed butter, a life of austerity.

What matters is the prosperity of the society + what they can sell afterwards.

1. Income inequality across the former Soviet Union-- Central Asia, Ukraine, etc. moreso than Russia-- is worse than it was during the Soviet period. More people were employed and the state guaranteed some amount of security. Once public services began to be cut (or privatized in extremely corrupt manners), more people experienced hardship. Whatever the faults with the Soviet system-- there were plenty-- I wouldn't dismiss the nostalgia for it as completely unwarranted.

2. Your "starve" remark is empty rhetoric. Past the 1950's, starvation was not really a problem compared to other developed countries. That was due to imports, but many capitalist economies are net importers of food. Millions of Americans go hungry, yet the United States is the largest producer of food in human history and could feed a good chunk of the world's population by itself.

1. Income inequality across the former Soviet Union-- Central Asia, Ukraine, etc. moreso than Russia-- is worse than it was during the Soviet period. More people were employed and the state guaranteed some amount of security. Once public services began to be cut (or privatized in extremely corrupt manners), more people experienced hardship. Whatever the faults with the Soviet system-- there were plenty-- I wouldn't dismiss the nostalgia for it as completely unwarranted.
2. Your "starve" remark is empty rhetoric. Past the 1950's, starvation was not really a problem compared to other developed countries. That was due to imports, but many capitalist economies are net importers of food. Millions of Americans go hungry, yet the United States is the largest producer of food in human history and could feed a good chunk of the world's population by itself.

Well they could purchase and eat the food, but they would have to offer something in trade (pay) for that food.

So basically, the only impact Russia has on the world is that it likes to veto stuff that America supports at the Security Council, and it sells lots of cheap weapons to Third World countries. Oh yeah, and we have to pay them in order to keep their nuclear arsenal secure.

So basically, the only impact Russia has on the world is that it likes to veto stuff that America supports at the Security Council, and it sells lots of cheap weapons to Third World countries. Oh yeah, and we have to pay them in order to keep their nuclear arsenal secure.

Oh for God's sake welcome to a book fundamental to understanding political economy. Better yet, welcome to the 21st century!

The Soviet Union produced one of the most useless economic systems ever in the history of mankind. They built crap cars, polluted the hell out of the environment, and a loaf of bread had an out of sight price.

They built a bunch of crap no one wanted and had extreme scarcity of things people did want.

Does anyone know if Putin will be running for another political office at the end of this presidential term? Will he seek another term as President, or Prime Minister, or something else? He's only 61, so he could still be around for a while. And as the crisis in Syria shows, and the deteriorating rights of gays in Russia shows, he's not exactly getting better.

He's only a little over a year into his current term which lasts for 6 years, so he's good until 2018. And he's able to run again for another term as per the Russian constitution (can serve any number of terms, but no more than 2 consecutive terms at any one time) which could take him to 2024 if he was keen (he'll be 72 by then).

I can't see him returning to the Prime Minister-ship - his 4 year time there (2008-2012) struck me more as a holding position until he could legally run for the Presidency again.

He's only a little over a year into his current term which lasts for 6 years, so he's good until 2018. And he's able to run again for another term as per the Russian constitution (can serve any number of terms, but no more than 2 consecutive terms at any one time) which could take him to 2024 if he was keen (he'll be 72 by then).

I can't see him returning to the Prime Minister-ship - his 4 year time there (2008-2012) struck me more as a holding position until he could legally run for the Presidency again.

Do you think Russia is going to change in any meaningful way while Putin is still president? He really is claiming the country as his own. We might as well call it "Putin Russia," like how the Saud family named their entire country after themselves But I wonder, there was already backlash at his re-election, could his rule actually weaken even if he never softens his own attitudes? Could he face a popular uprising?

I don't pretend to know much of Russian internal affairs, but Putin doesn't strike me as the type to change his spots very much. As you say there was heightened backlash at his last election which saw his poll numbers drop lower than anticipated. I could see an internal group of supporters insisting on a retirement plan if Putin is deemed to be growing too unpopular (assuming there is anyone behind the scenes who has that punch - maybe not).

As for a popular uprising, I can't see that happening, but then again the Berlin Wall and the collapse of Communism was quite sudden and not fully expected as well so who knows.